In re the Estate of Ramm

New York Court of Appeals

In re the Estate of Ramm

247 N.E.2d 279, 23 N.Y.2d 1009, 299 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1505

DecidedFebruary 26, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 247 N.E.2d 279 (In re the Estate of Ramm) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Estate of Ramm, 247 N.E.2d 279, 23 N.Y.2d 1009, 299 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1505 (N.Y. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there were presented and necessarily passed upon questions under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Appellant argued that sections [1010]*1010120, 118 and 94 of the Surrogate’s Court Act were constitutionally invalid in their application in this case, and such application of and construction of said statutes were violative of, or repugnant to, the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution which provide that no State shall deprive any person of property without due process of law and that all persons shall he accorded the equal protection of the laws. The Court of Appeals considered these contentions and held that there was no violation of petitioner’s constitutional rights. [See 22 N Y 2d 926.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there were presented and necessarily passed upon questions under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Appellant argued that sections [1010]*1010120, 118 and 94 of the Surrogate’s Court Act were constitutionally invalid in their application in this case, and such application of and construction of said statutes were violative of, or repugnant to, the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution which provide that no State shall deprive any person of property without due process of law and that all persons shall he accorded the equal protection of the laws. The Court of Appeals considered these contentions and held that there was no violation of petitioner’s constitutional rights. [See 22 N Y 2d 926.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 N.E.2d 279, 23 N.Y.2d 1009, 299 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-ramm-ny-1969.